Skip to main content

About your Search

20121202
20121210
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5
to determine the best education treatment and care for their disabled children. proponents of the treaty will dismiss those concerns as myth. i simply cannot support a treaty that threatens the right of parents to raise their children with the constantly made for a state interference. if this vote in this treaty were in fact about protecting the rights of americans with disabilities, i might have a different position in the debate would take on a very different tone. this treaty is ultimately not about protecting rights of americans with disabilities because this treaty simply has no enforcement mechanism to protect those rights, the rights of disabled americans including veterans who may travel the country such as china or russia or mali or any other country that may choose to adopt this treaty. if the senate desires to protect rights of disabled americans who travel abroad, the senate would do better to encourage other nations to model their own reforms, their own internal legal structures after the americans with disabilities act, which 20 years after its passage still send a message
, fundamental rights of parents to direct the education and the upbringing of their child with h special needs. this could result in forcibly transferring a disabled child from the home to government-run schools if these unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats deem it necessary, even if the senate puts reservations into this treaty." i ask that this letter -- i have two letters i'd ask that would be made a part of the record at this point. that is one of the other once coming from the concerned women of america. i ask that they be made a part of the record at this point in the journal. ferraro ithe presiding officer:s there objection? without objection. mr. inhofe: i have been an advocate of human rights around the world, ensuring that the world is accessible to those with disabilities. however, i do not support the cumbersome regulations and potentially overzealous international organizations with anti-american biases that inch - that infringe upon american society. you know, if we had not passed what i consider to be the gold standard of the disabled world when we passed -- and i do remember at
for the federal government in education. if we want one, we need to pass an amendment to the constitution to do it. now, he was for changing the constitution to get a role for education. but he said how is it that we have all these teacher training programs run by the federal government costing billion dollars a year run out of washington to train teachers who are actually a local and community and state responsibility? how'd we get there? and, oh, by the way, does anybody know if they're actually improving teacher training? actually improving the skills of our teachers? so there's really two questions. one is what's the constitutional role of the federal government in that and, number two, if there's a legitimate role -- or even if there isn't, you're spending the money -- shouldn't you know, shouldn't when we pass this say here's the metrics which we're going to use to measure whether or not a teacher's effective or whether the teacher training programs are effective? >> host: this month on our booktv "in depth" program, senator tom coburn, who is also a medical doctor and an author. he wrote "t
deductions. not enough revenue. less revenue equals more cuts in education. republicans ruled that out saying the new revenue would not be achieved through higher tax rates which we continue to oppose. they were referring to an erskine bowles plan that he testified to in the fall of 2011. the white house made it clear that's a nonstarter and they won't even respond until the gop puts forth a plan that includes a tax rate hike. the obstacle continues to be republicans who hold out hope. millionaires and billionaires. while it sounds like the two sides are far apart, the budget numbers are not that far apart. the white house you get close. they say it lacks detail. doon pfeiffer says it does not say which loopholes they would close or savings they would achieve. if the president is rejecting this middle ground offer it is his obligation to present a plan that can pass both chambers of congress. are we at a stalemate who offers something next? house republicans said theirs mirrors one proposed by erskine bowles, the democratic chair of the fiscal position. bowles shot down that suggestion. while
equipment, in r&d, in science education and infrastructure and so forth. the question many people, sir, don't want to consider is where do we get those resources with those enormous debts? i asked our research department if they would make a reasonable prediction of how important interest costs would be if we did nothing, and their estimate without any explosion in interest rates was as follows: within 25 years or so, our interest costs would jump from about 1% of the gdp to 12% of the gdp or roughly four times the total investment made in r&d, science education and infrastructure. and if we ever permit that to happen, we will have assured that we're going to have what i call a slow growth crisis. and that's at least my way of formulating what happens if we don't do anything. but, mike, please, take over. this is your meeting, not mine. >> well, one of the things i don't claim to be here is an economics expert, although it's from a national security standpoint, and i've felt this way for years, that it's not just about the health of our economy, it's around the world, it's the health of eco
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5